EVE General Discussion

You haven't lived in null sec yet by your own words, how do you know any of this?

Is that your best shot?

i'm not taking shots, I'm asking what you base your beliefs on. you are awfully sure of yourself for someone who has yet to try many things in the game, and frankly that's just a dumb way to be.

I see how you couched your question. Are you working for a losing political party? Your tactics and rhetoric is how you get the opposite results of your expectations.

What do you have against real risk and cost in a game that is sold on those ideas? But it is just a game after all. When you log off you are nobody. Like everybody else.

I like it when you start talking gibberish, it means what I'm saying is getting through to yo and you don't like it (easy to do with SJWs). Now answer the question, what do you have against self reliance, personal responsibility and people not crying their eyes out because they are bad at a video game a trained monkey could play?

It's a pretty stupid mechanic that forces citadel owners to lug items from an NPC station to their citadel instead of having it directly delivered.

But, like every horrible design decision in EVE, we have people defending it because it oughta teach those hopeless carebears what's what. Kinda sad.

But yeah, bad mechanic. A dropbox sounds like a great solution. If you wanna grief a hauler there are other ways to do it. But that would require you to put some effort into it.

There is real risk and loss. That some players have figured out how to exploit those players who have taken on too much risk is not a problem. Not from a game balance/mechanics standpoint. The solution is for those players to be more prudent.

I've seen some videos where pilots accept scam courier contracts and flip them on the scammer for laughs and profit.

If that can be done in high sec with citadel contracts then all is fine. If the only option is to lose, then CCP might want to have a closer look at the mechanic.

Mr Epeen

I am going to point out again that the usual take on risk-reward is actually backwards from most of the commentary. Risk is not some thing that is imposed by the game environment in EVE. Risk is something that is due to player actions. If a player blind jumps his super capital to a beacon and gets dropped nobody complains. Everyone realizes that the player was reckless and got what he deserved for being reckless.

This is true not just for super capitals, but for just about everything else. If you let somebody into your corp without checking out his background and building up some level of trust and he robs you blind. That is really on you. We all know that trust is very important in the game and that is can take a long time to build it. Similarly, as I have argued many times, if you anti-tank your freighter, put 6 billion ISK in cargo into it and undock and do not use even a scout…you are taking on lots of risk. Further, you are creating the large reward for the gankers. So the freighter pilot is creating the disparity in what most people think of as a risk vs. reward scenario. To turn around and blame the gankers or the game’s mechanics is just daft. It is like kicking your dog when your car battery is dead.

To be clear, when somebody says, there is not enough risk for X players given the reward when both the risk and the reward are the result of player Y’s actions. Player Y can reduce the reward and his risk by not taking that behavior that is risky for Y and rewarding the X players.

And this is true for contract scams. You are literally warned every time you accept a courier contract to anything other than an NPC station. You can avoid that risk with trivial ease. That a player takes on more risk than they are willing to tolerate is that player’s problem. Not anyone else’s problem especially CCP.

It is the same mechanic that has been around for player owned stations and outposts. Everyone in NS and who do business there know not to accept them unless you have access and are highly likely to retain said access.

HS players just don't pay attention and want to shift the risks they take onto others or even better have CCP simply remove that risk entirely.

Which is truly hilarious in that the very same people complaining about risk vs. reward want to remove risk...for themselves.